Gun Control Rears Its Ugly Head - Again (As Promised)

The first recorded homicide in history occurs in Genesis 4:8 “Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.”

The story of mans inhumanity to man is as old as recorded time, and yet we still seem to struggle with this fact today. At the core of this struggle seems to be an issue we have difficulty in dealing with: personal responsibility.

We, as human beings, seem to abhor accepting responsibility for what we do. We are constantly trying to “pass the buck” or “point the finger” in an attempt to redirect attention away from our actions or inactions. Never has this been truer then in the society we live in today.

So how does this relate to Gun Control and the tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut?

First, like the death of Abel, it is a tragedy. It is especially true when you have young children that are killed in an act of senseless violence. As a father, I can not imagine what those parents are going through but I pray for them and their families. The hardest part for me as a Christian is grappling with the fundamental question of why God allows certain things to happen.

But I remember Isaiah 45:9 “"What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, 'Stop, you're doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, 'How clumsy can you be?”

Whether we have the capacity to understand does not mean that there is not a reason. When we were children our parents prevented us from doing things that we wanted to. We didn’t understand then, but by and large we do now. I like to use the old “don’t touch the stove” adage. It’s a visual many people can understand and appreciate.

So again you might be asking what does this have to do with gun control?

The simple answer is that it comes back to personal responsibility. Gun control is akin to parents throwing out their stoves instead of teaching their children not to touch it. It removes the responsibility from the individual and places it on an object. The parents sit around feeling good about how they “protected” their children and yet all they have done is kicked the can down the road till the kid finds the latest threat. If that’s the way society acted we would all grow up in houses without cabinets, stoves, refrigerators, electricity, scissors, knives, door handles, tubs,…….. See my point?

In fact, it’s not even a new point. Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana, was an Italian jurist, philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764). It is staggering to consider that 250 years ago the issue of Gun Control was being addressed.  “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”

Let me tell you what I do know from twenty plus years of law enforcement experience and thirty plus years of gun ownership.

Gun Control is a lie. It does not work.

If stringent gun laws actually worked, then ask yourself why places like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. continue to have issues?  Why were there 532 murders in Chicago, a city that is considered the poster child for gun control laws? If removing all guns is the answer, then how do you explain crime in countries like England or Australia?

Back in 1996 a man, described as a “pathetic social misfit” killed 35 men, women and children in Australia’s worst mass murder. The then newly elected Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, seized the opportunity to radically overhaul Australia's gun laws. In doing so he trampled all opposition and Australia’s gun law among the strictest in the developed world. At the time, Prime Minister Howard went so far as to openly state "I hate guns. One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued there was “no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.” As is the case with most gun control supporters, Howard made the “common sense” argument that “tougher laws would make Australia safer.”  However research conducted twelve years later determined, despite everything that was done, that what the citizens of Australia actually got from the knee-jerk reaction amounted to nothing more than an extraordinary waste of public money and gun laws that made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.

In fact, gun crime in England was up 35% last year. In fact, it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise. This in a country where all guns, with few exceptions, are completely banned. Ironically, after the passage of the firearms ban in 1997, the number of crimes involving firearms increased from 13,874 reported in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03.

This begs the question, why?

The answer is two fold. First, despite “best intentions” you cannot legislate morality or personal responsibility. Second, criminals by their very nature do not obey the law. You would think this second issue would be “common sense” but you would be surprised if you listened to the gun control folks. As Australia found out, and something England already knows, criminals do not obey the law to begin with so the use of a firearm is just “another charge” to them. However, it is a tool that can make their job a lot easier and a lot safer. It’s a fairly good feeling to know that you are the only one at the party with a means of defense.

So if gun control really does nothing to address the issue, why pursue it?

The answer to that question comes back to responsibility. Everyone wants a quick answer yet no one wants to do the actual work. Politicians, who never met a camera they didn’t like, are thrust in front of a crazed media looking for talking points. The politician stands before the throng wringing their hands, feigning mock outrage and gives them what they want. The answer comes in the form of new gun laws aimed at keeping these “killing machines” out of the hands of…………….law abiding citizens. A group, as Beccaria-Bonesana noted, that is “neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

But what does that have to do with criminals and the acts they commit? Nothing.

You see, politicians understand this. Just as parents understand that the stove is not the real issue. But politicians, like some parents, don’t want to address the real problem. They don’t want to talk about how the “joke” that has become our judicial system has created overcrowding in the correctional institutions. People don’t want more prisons built, especially in “their” backyards, and so we “point fingers” everywhere other than where they should be pointed. Rather than deal with the actual issues, they want to stick their hand in the water, shake it around and get things nice and muddy so that what should be crystal clear to us becomes muddy and murky.

For the gun control crowd, the key to the epidemic gun violence in Chicago, committed by criminals, is to remove all the legally owned guns throughout Illinois. Then the criminals won’t get them. Seriously, that’s their argument. The fact that these criminals already have guns doesn’t seem to distract them.

But what happens when it simply does not work? For most of my professional career I have had politicians time and again call for “stricter” gun laws to curb violence. I went through the whole “assault weapons ban” of the Clinton era. The one thing I have found is that all these laws were wonderful in curbing legal ownership but I never found it to be a significant deterrent to the criminal element. Like whiskey during prohibition, if you got money you can get anything.

The one thing I did find was that criminals were more or less amused at our so called justice system. For the longest time the standing joke was that we, the police, spent more time in the booking system then the actual criminals. I can personal attest to the fact that I spent “days” in the booking system while my prisoner was gone within hours. Even when they were found guilty the odds of spending any length of time in prison was minimal, even under the vaunted gun laws of New York City. In fact, it was not that uncommon for the gun charge to get dropped during plea bargain agreements.

So, if you are like me, you have to ask why make new laws when your not enforcing the ones already on the books? The answer is that someone has to bear the responsibility. The worst thing that can happen when there is a tragedy is for a lot of people to stand around and do nothing, especially politicians. We want answers, we demand them, and we are willing to accept knee jerk ones if they sound good.

The media backs this folly for ratings, and unfortunately, they lie. How can I say this? Very simply, when it comes to guns by and large the media is in the anti gun camp. If we are going to have this debate then lets at least be honest. Next time there is a murder in your city, look at the graphic the evening news puts up. Chances are it will have a gun in it. How the person was actually killed doesn’t matter. The gun will paint a picture. It’s a subliminal message. Next time there is a local gun rally, you will normally see a gun control advocate calling for “sensible” gun laws, and then a pro gun advocate will be shown carrying on about “prying it from my cold dead fingers.” On a real slow news day they might even wait to get a shot of someone dressed as a patriot………… anyway you put it, it’s dishonest. An honest debate is one where both sides are presented, fairly, and the people get to make their own choices, not based on the media pabulum that is provided to them for their digestion.

In fact, one has to look no further for an example then the media’s blatant misuse of the word “assault weapon.”  The term is 100% disingenuous and they know it. Maybe you have asked yourself, what is an “assault weapon?” If you follow the news, it seems they are used in just about EVERY crime committed. The truth is a genuine assault weapon is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semi-automatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. For instance, even though you can own one under federal law, Illinois says no.  Not only are these types of weapons heavily regulated, they are extremely expensive. That H&K MP5 “assault weapon” that Hollywood is so fond of showing in all their action films will set you back a mere 15-16 thousand dollars. The fact is, these assault weapons are used in an extremely small percentage of crimes. It’s the equivalent of using a Porsche 911 as a getaway car.

Then why do they do it? Because it sounds salacious. It sells and at the end of the day that is all they care about. Not truth, ratings. The reality is that when a long gun (i.e. AK4, AR15, etc.,) are used they are almost certainly going to be semi-automatic. What does this mean? Very simple, each shot requires the shooter to pull the trigger. It’s the same basic mechanical system your grandfather may have used in WWII whether he used an M-1 Garand, Kar-98, Type 4 Arisaka, or an SVT-40. So what is the real fuss about?

When you get down to the brass tacks, these types of rifles are vilified simply because of the way they look. But is the way a gun looks reason enough to ban it?

The other day a family member asked this question “why do you need to own a gun like that?”  I am often amazed at this question, because it seems to fly in the face of everything we believe in this country. That if you work hard, that you raise yourself up, you can accomplish anything you want in life. That your limits are only those you impose on yourself. You can opt to live in a modest home in the Midwest or you can choose an opulent penthouse with a view of Central Park. All dependant upon your personal goals and desires.

Let me put it to you this way, the state of Texas has a 41 mile long road that has the highest posted speed limit in the United States, 85 MPH. The highest in others states range between 65-75 MPH. If that is the case why should people be allowed to have cars that potentially can go faster than that? What is the reason? Yes, you might be able to afford a Lamborghini Diablo, and you might even want it, but why should you be able to own something that potentially could be used to violate the law………..

This may seem a funny example, but the truth is that the CDC reports you are more likely to die in a vehicle accident than you are by firearm. So why isn’t there a call to ban any cars that “look” fast?

Ironically, should legislation be enacted, the firearm I carried as a law enforcement officer would now potentially become illegal. So while I was working for the government it was okay, but now that I am retired I could be identified as a criminal? Ask yourself this simple question: “If government can do this, in the name of safety, what else can it do?”

At the heart of the matter is the principal belief by some that guns are bad and should be banned. But as Americans, should we accept this? I consider myself a tolerant person, I may not believe in the same things you do, but I don’t call for a ban on your right to do them, I simply choose not to do them myself. But the gun control group “believes” they know what’s best for you and therefore guns should be banned.  Consider for a moment that the statistics leading up to the 1992 “Assault Weapons Ban” indicated that Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involved any type of rifle. In fact, no more than .8% of homicides were perpetrated with rifles using military calibers (i.e. AR-15, AK-47 rounds).  So why did they ban them? Make no mistake, they might say openly that they only want “this gun” or “that gun” banned, but it really is just the first steps. They start with that and will use it as a stepping stone to gun confiscation. Because honestly, they just don’t like guns.

“I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”

- then Senator Barack Obama

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Senator Diane Feinstein (A concealed weapons permit holder)

"Those of who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms... once we establish that there is a constitutional right to bear arms we should have the right admit, and maybe they'll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all."

-Senator Charles Schumer (A concealed weapons permit holder who also has an NYPD Protection detail)

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns."

 - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

The one thing about the internet is that everything you say seems to have been recorded for all posterity.

This agenda is nothing new. I have written about this before.

AWB: Eric Holder fires the first shot

Those Dangerous Military Veterans

NYC Anti Gun Mayor - No to National Guard

The funny thing is that over the years I have written a lot more about this issue. Most I never bothered to post. I would write for days, get frustrated at the fact that I felt no one would even bother to care, and just file it. Maybe I am part of the problem for doing that. Maybe I should just post them and let you decide; maybe if I could reach out to one person it would be worth the effort.

In the end the true question we need to ask ourselves is this: “Can the government legislate personal responsibility?”

As a country we seem to have come to a crossroads. In the name of diversification and inclusiveness we have pushed God out the door and replaced him with “nothing.” Rather then offend someone who doesn’t believe in anything, we choose to restrict the majority who do. We turn our backs on God, and advise people to just live their lives without restriction, and then wonder why people act the way they do. Without a belief system there are no boundaries, no rules. If I do not worry about the consequences of an almighty, then I can justify my actions and do whatever I want without fear of retaliation.

Maybe it is time for us as Americans to question whether the crossroad we have chosen to go down was the right one.

Maybe we should stop trying to blame “things” and begin to hold individuals responsible.

Maybe, rather than blaming law abiding citizens, we should go after those who commit the crimes.

Politicians are inclined to take the path of least resistance. One has only to turn on a TV or pickup a newspaper to see what has happened in DC.

This country is drowning in debt and the answer is not to be more fiscally responsible, but to spend more and raise our credit limit.

Yet what have they done to address all the others issues that contribute to gun violence? Poverty, Drugs, Mental Illness? Nothing………. It’s all smoke and mirrors. They get their headlines, they get their fifteen minutes of fame and when it fails, they wring their hands, blame someone else and say “oh well, we tried.”

The issue is that we have stopped encouraging individuals to rise to the top, and are now dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.  Personal responsibility has now been replaced with “medals for everyone, we are all special.” Then when our little prodigies go out into the real world they are amazed when someone actually expects them to deliver the mail to the CEO rather than making them the CEO when they are hired. Instead of sucking it up, they begin to blame everyone else for their shortcomings and we accept it and make excuses for them.

As a country we will not survive on this path. This is not doom and gloom but simple truth. There is what is called the law of unintended consequence that says, despite political double speak, there are consequences to folly.  But if it is the government that is the leading proponent for taking this path, what happens to you as an individual when their folly becomes your consequence to deal with?

You will begin to hear a lot coming out of Washington and gun control advocates talking about how “these guns are not legitimate hunting weapons.” That is true. The gun control group is now engaging in revisionist tactics. That they have no objection to individuals hunting, or sport shooting, etc…. but they just want to get rid of those pesky bad “military” style items that have “no lawful purpose”  you know, “common sense” gun control.

But where in the 2nd Amendment does it talk about “hunting weapons.” It specifically says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The answer is this, the founding fathers wrote the constitution and the bill of rights because they realized the potential for abuse by the government they were creating. It was their desire that the government should be subservient to the people. It scared them that over time the government could become corrupted and they sought to secure the individual rights so that there would always be a defense against any abuse.

Consider these two quotes:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

Whether we wish to admit it or not, the words are crystal clear.

The question at hand now is the ability of the state (government) to be secure. When the government has become incapable of adequately addressing crime and providing for protection, should its citizens be disarmed of their right to do it simply for some alleged “common good”?

There have been and always will be criminals, nothing will stop that, so is expecting protection to come in the form of police the answer? Some, like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, will tell you yes.

There is only one problem, it’s a lie.

In 1981 there was a case called Warren v. District of Columbia. It detailed an extremely heinous crime against three women and the failure of the police to respond. D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Latest statistics show that there are approximately eight hundred thousand law enforcement officers in the United States. The ratio of officer to citizen is approximately 1 to 375. That is of course assuming that every one of those officers was on patrol, twenty-four / seven.

Even if you combined the number of active duty and reserve military personnel, which is just about 3 million, you still would only have approximately four million potential “protectors” for a population of over 300 million citizens or a ratio of 1 to 75 again assuming the 24/7 rule.

Consider this for a moment, the state of Alaska is 663,300 sq miles and is 1/5th the size of the lower 48 states. To put this in perspective it would be equal to the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. It has a population of about ¾ quarters of a million people with just a little more than eleven hundred sworn officers.

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is an auxiliary deterrent provided when possible but without guarantee.

As a professional law enforcement officer I can tell you with full conviction, based upon experience, that security is an illusion, just like gun control is. It is the folly of a government ill equipped, or unwilling, to take action to address the real problem and fearful that one day its citizens will realize that and try to strip away their power. When that fear becomes real to them, they will take actions to remove it. That’s what the founders understood, that’s what all tyrannical governments understand as well.   

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung

In the event that you thought the above quote was a little dated, Xinhua, the official news agency for the Chinese government, said “Americans need to be disarmed immediately, and Obama should exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to bring that about.”

Guess the party line has not changed much. It’s worked so well for the people there.